Exetel changes piracy policy

Exetel changes piracy policy

Summary: Internet service provider Exetel announced yesterday it would change the way it forwarded alleged copyright infringement notices to customers.

TOPICS: Piracy, Security

Internet service provider Exetel announced yesterday it would change the way it forwarded alleged copyright infringement notices to customers.

In an email seen by ZDNet.com.au, Exetel said the practice it had used for the past five years was to be changed. Up until now, when the ISP received an alleged copyright infringement notice it forwarded it automatically onto the relevant customer.

According to Exetel CEO John Linton's blog, it allowed customers to either deny or apologise to the rights holders, but did not cut users off. Access was temporarily blocked until the customer acknowledged that they had received the notice and either complied with it or denied the allegation.

But this has been scheduled to change at the end of February.

"We will modify this practice in the near future," Exetel said in an email to customers yesterday. "We will continue to send any infringement notices we receive in the future, but before the end of February we will not require the user to acknowledge receipt of it nor will we temporarily block the customer's internet access.

"Subject to final legal advice, and re-coding time and testing, we will in future simply send the infringement notice to the registered 'owner' of the service."

It would be accompanied by the following email:

Dear [ ],

A copyright infringement notice has been sent to Exetel that states that your Exetel IP (internet connection) has been used to acquire material that breaches copyright.

You do not need to take any action except to be aware that, if you or some member of your household are in fact using your internet connection to infringe another party's copyright, they have been able to detect that action and could, at some time in the future should they wish to do so, involve themselves in the legal and other costs of taking some action against you.

Again, you are not required to take any action regarding this infringement notice and it is sent to you as a courtesy in case usage of the internet connection in your name is being used in ways unknown to you.

Exetel Provisioning

Exetel CEO told ZDNet.com.au last week that there was "no doubt" that copyright was being infringed "in almost every case".

Topics: Piracy, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • makes sense

    Exetels new 'piracy policy' makes sense.
    They're possing on notice of an ACCUSATION to the owner of the service and thats it.
    They're not disabling/disconnecting the customer so there's no love lost in goodwill between Exetel and the customer.
    In this way, they 'supporting' iinet whilst still covering their arse.
  • little better

    A significant improvement but still harassment of the customer with what almost certainly amounts to spam.
  • It's not consistent

    While most internet users are morons, there are the few who think to hide or faux their IP addresses from being logged. That and if someone else if using you IP there is no way to find out who is using it. To out it simply a new way needs to be found to prosecute software thieves because an IP log is just to insufficient.
  • Exetel users all pirates?

    I find it a little unusual that Exetel would send an email declaring that their user is breaching copyright when they have no evidence of this actually occuring. Exetel, why does your email not read:

    "A copyright infringement notice has been sent to Exetel which alleges that your Exetel IP (internet connection) has been used to acquire material that breaches copyright."?

    By Exetel passing on the notices and claiming that the copyright notice is factual rather than indicating the notice is merely an allegation, AFACT might decide to find out if Exetel is a better target. The iiNet case has shown that ISPs do not need to pass on notices alleging copyright breaches and while Exetel is free to do this if they so wish, careful wording of the email is required to make it clear that the notice received by Exetel is considered as nothing more than an allegation.
  • Who cares about a loser isp

    Who cares about a loser isp?
    Do they still have customers to send notices to? Or have their customers all migrated to iinet?
  • CopyRight

    Who in the world would want to be an Exetel customer if they do this. Basically, they have ignored the ruling in the court and decided to do what they want. The court rules that its not the role of the ISP to be the police fo the internet, only to provide the service. Beyond this is the cusotmers responsibility. Obviously Exetel dont understand this hand have decided to do what they want. Next the will end up in court.
  • Read it again.

    [A megabuck "we have more than enough money, but enough is never enough" distribution company has ALLEGED that your IP has been linked to what they consider to be Copyright breaching activities.

    [We bring this to your attention (thereby covering our butts) so that if one of these megabuck companies decides to try and bankrupt you, we have passed on this warning.

    [We also advise that someone else may be using your IP without your knowledge or consent, about which the megabuck corporation will care very little.]

    With the recent Court ruling, I think Exetel has made the only move available to keep it out of the same target-sights as iiNet.

    Just to add confusion to the iiNet saga, I was recently GIVEN a disc of material that had been copied, and posted from Germany. Now, when I buy something through eBay that comes from Germany I've long forgotten about the purchase by the time the item arrives--it would seem that German Customs check all outgoing packages three times over, in which case: how did a sloppy inkjet printed CD get through the postal system? Am I to take this disc to the Federal Police and bring charges against Australia Post? As a single disc sent person-to-person and then given to me because the recipient was dis-interested in the content, I see no issue. If, on the other hand, I had reason to believe this was part of a multi-thousand disc shipment intended to deceive the public with counterfiet merchandise, I wouldn't be talking about it here--I would have already handed it over to relevant authorities instead of just scrapping it.